Welcome to Echoing the Sound. You'll find that quite a few things have changed here since the last iteration of the board so be sure to check out the FAQ. This is a completely fresh start - You'll need to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed (and look for the registration email in your spam folder). To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

@GibbonBlack I'm not trying to insinuate where you're coming from, though I can see how it would come across that way. This is more in response to the outpouring from the MJ-Defense-Force that I've seen come raging out in response to the documentary. Many of these people won't even admit that his behavior towards kids was even wildly inappropriate. Many of these people are heavily invested in the notion that the allegations are impossible. He's a saint to them. When the first trailer for the documentary came out, the like to dislike ratio of the youtube clip was more slanted to dislike than practically anything I've seen... People were already viciously attacking the alleged victims before they'd even seen the documentary. The way they were framing the two accusers and referring to them, you'd think they were the ones accused of the molestation charges.

It's almost like trying to have a theological debate with an evangelical. There's something unique about the shared devotion of many Michael Jackson fans, and I'd say it crosses over more into the realm of fanatic. I'm not saying everyone who disputes the allegations is in that camp, but there's a shockingly large number of them.

It could, but Safechuck claims that the gold and diamond ring was given to him during a mock wedding ceremony... and the holding hands thing... Sure, if you're the guardian for a child in a crowded area you hold their hand to keep them close and safe. This wasn't like that. This was him taking young boys to industry events, and they're the child of strangers, and that child is sleeping in his goddamn bed!

EDIT: and I was thinking about it, and if it was in the documentary, maybe I missed it (I still haven't finished the second part, though I'm very near the end...it's really draining). What about those reports from the Santa Barbara police that claimed they found a secret compartment in Neverland Ranch containing animal torture/gore videos and damning pornographic photos... I saw an online thread where a defender of Jackson was claiming that report was disproven, but when I just tried to look online, the only thing I could find "disproving it" was an article where members of the Jackson estate were calling it slander.

I'm not sure what motive the police would have to slander a dead man.

This conversation is exactly my point though. It's never going to be proven either way, it's just everyone's own interpretation of what we do know.

But I do agree with you about the diehards. Even if there were video evidence those morons would still defend him

This conversation is exactly my point though. It's never going to be proven either way, it's just everyone's own interpretation of what we do know.

of course, but that’s not uncommon in rape/molestation cases generally. There’s usually no concrete evidence... in one YouTube comment I read on the Leaving Neverland doc debunk video, someone said something along the lines of “this is why I don’t believe accusers without evidence, and that includes Kavanaugh and Jussie Smollett.” There’s a lot more evidence here than in most cases, the writing is on the wall, and even still the people who are suggesting the accusers be heard are getting death threats.

But I do agree with you about the diehards. Even if there were video evidence those morons would still defend him

yep, and they’re desperate to shut down discussion. Seriously, most people like me (who fall in the more indifferent camp when it comes to his music and legacy) aren’t going to play this game...

They were talking on the radio this morning about the dude who found another tape of R Kelly. He said he happened to be looking across his VHS collection and came across it. Happen to? Yeah, right. XD Why the hell would you keep something like that? And why would you want to even have yourself identified to it and have a lawyer to do a press conference? He should've just mailed it to the police with a no-return address. He must have something else going on.

They were talking on the radio this morning about the dude who found another tape of R Kelly. He said he happened to be looking across his VHS collection and came across it. Happen to? Yeah, right. XD Why the hell would you keep something like that? And why would you want to even have yourself identified to it and have a lawyer to do a press conference? He should've just mailed it to the police with a no-return address. He must have something else going on.

Yeah that whole tape thing is SUPER iffy to me! If it IS him then great, he can't whine about hard evidence...still questions need to be asked about the person who was in possession of it...

Attorneys who represent victims of sexual abuse by priests have released what they say is the most comprehensive list yet of Catholic clergy with ties to Illinois who have been accused of misconduct against children.

The list includes about 400 priests and lay people who at one time served in parishes or schools or otherwise worked in the state, with accusations spanning more than a half-century. That number far exceeds the roughly 200 priests who already have been publicly identified by Illinois’ six Catholic dioceses, including the Chicago Archdiocese.

“The data reveal the horrifying scale of priests sexually assaulting minors to the present day,” the report said. “Perhaps most shocking among the discoveries is that some perpetrators were intentionally transferred and retained in trusted positions with direct access to children even after they were known to sexually abuse children.”

Many of the priests named in the new report already have been publicly identified in news stories and court records, even if they don’t appear on dioceses’ official lists. The dioceses generally used different standards for publicly identifying priests, in some cases omitting clergy when claims against them could not be substantiated or when an allegation was made after the priest died.